There's a world of difference between USMC Kato's point about compromising physical standards for combat units simply for the sake of allowing women to qualify, and the idea that military decision making is inherently compromised by the presence of bewbs.

My thoughts are that when men statistically demonstrate superior upper body strength, women have better hand-eye coordination and faster reflexes, and they're both selfless enough to put their lives on the line for their country, I suspect there are enough roles on the battlefield to go around.

Of course, Kato has forgotten more about military tactics than I'll ever know, so if there are compelling reasons why a women can't load torpedo tubes on a submarine, pilot an A-10 Thunderbolt, or command an Abrams tank, I'll defer to his knowledge on the subject.

-Autistic Angel

To specify a little bit, I'm talking about regular ground pounding Infantry units. A 60 to 80 pound rucksack, weapon, ammo, body armor and bubble gum is a hell of a lot to carry. And in some cases, we need to carry all that and quickly drag a poor bastard out of a kill zone or lift another bastard out of a burning Humvee. There are women that are extremely capable of doing this, but for now this is uncommon. If physical standards are met for infantry or line troops by females, then the military needs to stop complaining about integrating them into specific combat roles.

The Marines will not lower physical standards for certain specialties, Gen. James Amos told USA TODAY. "We can't afford to lower standards," he said. "We can't make adjustments on what's required on the battlefield.

"That's not why America has a Marine Corps," he said.

The Marine Corps, like the Army, is reviewing the physical and other standards required for direct combat fields that had previously been closed to female servicemembers.

I'd trust a woman's strategy as much as a mans any day of the week. Far more guile to be found there, and while I may not always like it, my GF regularly proves to be far more clever, observant, and able to get right to the crux of a matter without pussyfooting around.

When one considers that (current) enemies do not incorporate women into the planning and execution of strategy it's almost an unfair advantage.

Now, as to standards based on physical hauling and the like, perhaps the Marines should be looking at burden ratios rather than a one-size-fits-all yardstick (across the board). There must be marines who do fantastic work that do not get a 1st class physical because their frame isn't the same, and while physical mass and structure is different, there are distinct advantages to having a diverse group of people on a team.

Perhaps they should drop that metric, and focus on value when measuring success - and keep the physical requirements for measuring failure.

Logged

"If it weren't for Philo T. Farnsworth, inventor of television, we'd still be eating frozen radio dinners." - Johnny Carson

Chicks should be allowed on the front lines because we need to have someone nagging our male soldiers so that they keep pressing forward. Think about it. You got some dame behind you telling you that you forgot to clean out the garage back at HQ, what are you going to do? You're going to rush straight into the enemy lair, that's what you're going to do. The moment some Yenta appears on your flank to give you grief, you only have one option...escape.

Logged

Warning: You will see my penis. -Brian

Just remember: once a user figures out gluten noting them they're allowed to make fun of you. - Ceekay speaking in tongues.

Chicks should be allowed on the front lines because we need to have someone nagging our male soldiers so that they keep pressing forward. Think about it. You got some dame behind you telling you that you forgot to clean out the garage back at HQ, what are you going to do? You're going to rush straight into the enemy lair, that's what you're going to do. The moment some Yenta appears on your flank to give you grief, you only have one option...escape.

Plus there's a reason why the automated voice warnings on planes and helicopters are female. They tend to get heard and acted upon.

Logged

A Pew Research Center poll found nearly half of Americans hold the false belief that TARP was passed under President Obama, while only 34 percent know it originated under Bush."Oh yeah?" Bush replied. "50% of the people were wrong."

Wow, that's an impressive bit of gender sterotyping there, guys! Take it from someone who's actually served with female soldiers: They're every bit as capable as male soldiers, if not more due to the ingrained attitudes from males they have to fight against. The average woman might not have the same muscle capacity as their male counterparts, but they wouldn't get through basic training if they weren't able to do their jobs properly.

There's a hint of "women shouldn't be allowed to vote, for they are too busy in the kitchen to understand the world of politics" in this debate, and it's a good idea to make sure we don't stumble into that little trap.

Sorry about that, I must have hit send on the empty text field.

Just to clarify Tilt, were you infantry? Did you actually fight alongside them in country and in the field?

I have a few things to say about this subject, but it probably won't make much sense to those who have no experience down range.

Just to clarify Tilt, were you infantry? Did you actually fight alongside them in country and in the field?

Most people don't actually go to combat zones when they serve in the Norwegian army, and neither did I. We tend to fight our wars with special forces instead of the regular grunts, and we don't fight in many wars to begin with. I think it's a bit cowardly of my country, but that's another discussion for another time.

I trained for Sergeant in the mobile infantry, and in my company there was a respectable amount of girls. It's been 15 years now, so I don't remember the numbers. We carried around some pretty heavy equipment, among them the ERYX anti-tank missile system and ammunition, and most of the girls in my troop did very, very well indeed, even with their heavy loads. We were on exercises where, if you sat down, you'd need the help of two others to get up again due to the weight you carried on your back. One of the absolutely best soldiers I served with was female. Having said that, you could find girls among the shittiest soldiers in my troop too, and since one of them was in my squad I had to deal with her shit every day. It goes both ways in the same way it does with us men.

It seemed to me, though it's been so long that my memory is sketchy, that relatively more women dropped out than men during the first few weeks of training.

Well shit, I had this all written up and then my internet goes out again. Lost everything, I'm a jackass for not starting out on a word doc. Basically I recorded most of the heated discussion and I had typed up some of the more memorable quotes here. I'll get back to it when my morale is better At the very least a cliffnotes version

This is intended for the GT community only and please do not repost anywhere else. I consider the GamingTrend community a part of my family so I appreciate it if my post stays here. The following are the opinions of myself, my family, and some of my colleagues.

During my retirement luncheon last week, I had the honor of having a majority of the people I have worked and deployed with. Also in attendance were most of my siblings, 2 brothers in the Marine Corps (SNCO's), 1 brother in the Army (newbie), 2 sisters (field grade officers), and 1 sister in the chair force. The event was a good time, with the explicit instructions of everyone leaving their rank or grade at the front door. The number one topic of the day seemed to be about women in combat. I have roughly 4 hours of video on this debate.

Here are some of their candid opinions:

Civilian (female) - "I imagine my youngest son (currently 16, only two years from enlistment and aiming for Infantry) in a combat situation with women. As much as this young man loves his country and would be in the fight to win it - he would absolutely protect female comrades AT ALL COST. He has a mom and three sisters (not to leave out other female family members), is naturally protective and is being raised right. Any situation that involved a female comrade would cause his focus to automatically shift to her safety - AT ANY COST. No amount of re-training will counteract those instincts and would surely compromise the mission, thereby compromising the lives of EVERYBODY in the unit."

Sergeant (female S-1 admin) - "There are some things that cannot be denied or ignored. While I certainly possess the fighting spirit, the capacity to handle extreme bullshit and discomfort, the fact remains that I cannot pick up a 60-pound pack, put it on and walk for nine miles, and that's before boots, body armor and ammo. Since the beginning of time men and women are and will always be different....some very good points have been made. It doesn't mean women are less than men because we don't nor will we have the strength of men....and do men and women really want to change that and change how the roles should be? This is not saying women should be barefoot in the kitchen with babies on her hip, but come on, there are things that should be left to men and things that should be or women. I am very proud to have 3 sons serving, but do not want my 2 daughter serving, nor do I think their brothers would want them there, knowing what they know."

Sis #1 - "Interesting to me how women in combat are presumed to be fragile and unable, trust me not every MALE that goes into combat is as physically/emotionally strong as a Navy Seal and witholding Females from combat is not going to change that. A Soldier is a Soldier as a Marine is a Marine as a Sailor is a Sailor."

Salty MasterGuns - "Women are physically inferior to men. All of the people here that have no service experience or combat experience, your opinions are based on nothing. I want all of you to go find a male friend that weighs 175 lbs. I then want you to add 25 lbs for his body armor, 3 lbs for his helmet, 15 lbs for his ammo, 5 lbs for his grenades, 15 lbs for his weapon, 35 lbs for his assault pack and 5 more pounds for his self carried medical equipment. Now that man should weigh nearly 300 lbs. I want that man to now play dead. Now drag or carry that man 200 meters. That is the weight of the average Infantry soldier. How many of you think you could do this?"

Sis #2 - "I agree wholeheartedly that women should not be in a line unit. I've served with female soldiers in the Army (Combat Support and Service Support). And they did a great job. Combat Arms is a whole 'nother animal. THIS ISSUE IS BEING PUSHED BY THE FEMALE OFFICERS' CORPS in order to gain rank, pure and simple. The enlisted corps (males & females) realize the dangerous fallacies by pushing females into the Combat Arms ranks. The price for this PC BS will be unnecessary death, and a country that can't stomach the high price of military action." LOL. Sis #1 gives Sis #2 ultimate dirty look.

Wife of Salty MasterGuns - "I strongly believe in female rights but I am strongly against this, I can't picture a woman who in full gear could carry my wounded husband to safety who himself in full gear would weigh around 250lbs and there are more guys way bigger than him out there. There is a difference between the guys doing everything they could for one of their brothers and a woman getting one of our boys killed because she loved Gi Jane and now wants something to prove. I'm sorry I'm for equality but not at my husbands expense."

Big Bro - "I firmly believe that policy makers in Washington do not have the capacity or experiential capital to make a remotely informed decision on this issue.For all of the reasons so astutely and passionately outlined in the comments from my fellow Marine...our country is not prepared for the realities and carnage resulting from women being employed in direct infantry roles on the battlefield.

Female warriors have served valiantly, honorably, and with great distinction in battle...and have paid an extraordinary price with their lives, their limbs, and their futures. As a Marine, we all know what we're getting into...we also understand, unlike any fighting force on this planet, that we may be called upon to give up our life for our fellow Marine. Marines embrace this truth. We also understand we have defined roles that must be adhered to in order to maximize battlefield outcomes, and ultimately, save lives.Folks...this is not about gender equality, as evidenced by my female Marine counterpart. There are indisputable realities about close-combat and direct-action combat operations which do not change because we want them to. Semper Fidelis"

Geverich (Strong like Bear) - "Some very valid points were made here. But still, you never know until you try. What if women experience much bigger adrenaline spikes than men do? There have been recorded instances when women having acted in amazingly heroic ways that they can't explain.

I have seen the biggest strongest meanest guys freeze up in the face of death. At the same time, I have seen tiny Asian guys react as if they were seven feet tall. (Looks at Kato) No one can look at anyone and say, "that guy is a warrior."

The same may be true of women. One might be one hell of a hero next to a beast of a man who is frozen solid.

But there are still some very valid points made here. Some can be corrected by new technology (or existing, like the P-mate for women). Some points may never see a solution (like a mans inherent nature to protect a woman)."

So basically there is a big divide here. You have the ''Dinosaurs" on one side who believe that if it ain't broke don't fix it. And you have the younger generation who believe that this will strengthen the military, and not weaken it.

Before this discussion I believed that women would be a bad idea, but afterwards...I really don't know. I was directed to this article as well.

Interesting read from a few weeks ago. I have full permission to post this in its entirety here.

Some advice on women in combat from a female veteran posted at 5:01 pm on January 27, 2013 by Jazz Shaw

Yesterday’s column on women in combat elicited a number of passionate responses from both sides. Some of them came from proponents of the move, frequently citing alternate motives on my part. These ranged from “trying to keep women pregnant in the kitchen” and “Republicans want to lock women in the 1950s” to whichever variant of the GOP’s “war on women” you’d care to name. Many others lent a more sympathetic ear. One in particular, though, caught my attention. It was from one of America’s female veterans who served in Iraq, delivered with a first hand, been there, done that background. The Marine in question – who for purposes of publication will go by the pseudonym of “Sentry” – had previously submitted this history and opinion as a comment at National Review, but her story was compelling enough that I checked into her background, contacted her and decided to republish it here in its entirety. I offer the following as a third party testimony to stand your scrutiny on its own merits.

I’m a female veteran. I deployed to Anbar Province, Iraq. When I was active duty, I was 5’6, 130 pounds, and scored nearly perfect on my PFTs. I naturally have a lot more upper body strength than the average woman: not only can I do pull-ups, I can meet the male standard. I would love to have been in the infantry. And I still think it will be an unmitigated disaster to incorporate women into combat roles. I am not interested in risking men’s lives so I can live my selfish dream.

We’re not just talking about watering down the standards to include the politically correct number of women into the unit. This isn’t an issue of “if a woman can meet the male standard, she should be able to go into combat.” The number of women that can meet the male standard will be miniscule–I’d have a decent shot according to my PFTs, but dragging a 190-pound man in full gear for 100 yards would DESTROY me–and that miniscule number that can physically make the grade AND has the desire to go into combat will be facing an impossible situation that will ruin the combat effectiveness of the unit. First, the close quarters of combat units make for a complete lack of privacy and EVERYTHING is exposed, to include intimate details of bodily functions. Second, until we succeed in completely reprogramming every man in the military to treat women just like men, those men are going to protect a woman at the expense of the mission. Third, women have physical limitations that no amount of training or conditioning can overcome. Fourth, until the media in this country is ready to treat a captured/raped/tortured/mutilated female soldier just like a man, women will be targeted by the enemy without fail and without mercy.

I saw the male combat units when I was in Iraq. They go outside the wire for days at a time. They eat, sleep, urinate and defecate in front of each other and often while on the move. There’s no potty break on the side of the road outside the wire. They urinate into bottles and defecate into MRE bags. I would like to hear a suggestion as to how a woman is going to urinate successfully into a bottle while cramped into a humvee wearing full body armor. And she gets to accomplish this feat with the male members of her combat unit twenty inches away. Volunteers to do that job? Do the men really want to see it? Should they be forced to?

Everyone wants to point to the IDF as a model for gender integration in the military. No, the IDF does not put women on the front lines. They ran into the same wall the US is about to smack into: very few women can meet the standards required to serve there. The few integrated units in the IDF suffered three times the casualties of the all-male units because the Israeli men, just like almost every other group of men on the planet, try to protect the women even at the expense of the mission. Political correctness doesn’t trump thousands of years of evolution and societal norms. Do we really WANT to deprogram that instinct from men?

Regarding physical limitations, not only will a tiny fraction of women be able to meet the male standard, the simple fact is that women tend to be shorter than men. I ran into situations when I was deployed where I simply could not reach something. I wasn’t tall enough. I had to ask a man to get it for me. I can’t train myself to be taller. Yes, there are small men…but not so nearly so many as small women. More, a military PFT doesn’t measure the ability to jump. Men, with more muscular legs and bones that carry more muscle mass than any woman can condition herself to carry, can jump higher and farther than women. That’s why we have a men’s standing jump and long jump event in the Olympics separate from women. When you’re going over a wall in Baghdad that’s ten feet high, you have to be able to be able to reach the top of it in full gear and haul yourself over. That’s not strength per se, that’s just height and the muscular explosive power to jump and reach the top. Having to get a boost from one of the men so you can get up and over could get that man killed.

Without pharmaceutical help, women just do not carry the muscle mass men do. That muscle mass is also a shock absorber. Whether it’s the concussion of a grenade going off, an IED, or just a punch in the face, a woman is more likely to go down because she can’t absorb the concussion as well as a man can. And I don’t care how the PC forces try to slice it, in hand-to-hand combat the average man is going to destroy the average woman because the average woman is smaller, period. Muscle equals force in any kind of strike you care to perform. That’s why we don’t let female boxers face male boxers.

Lastly, this country and our military are NOT prepared to see what the enemy will do to female POWs. The Taliban, AQ, insurgents, jihadis, whatever you want to call them, they don’t abide by the Geneva Conventions and treat women worse than livestock. Google Thomas Tucker and Kristian Menchaca if you want to see what they do to our men (and don’t google it unless you have a strong stomach) and then imagine a woman in their hands. How is our 24/7 news cycle going to cover a captured, raped, mutilated woman? After the first one, how are the men in the military going to treat their female comrades? ONE Thomasina Tucker is going to mean the men in the military will move heaven and earth to protect women, never mind what it does to the mission. I present you with Exhibit A: Jessica Lynch. Male lives will be lost trying to protect their female comrades. And the people of the US are NOT, based on the Jessica Lynch episode, prepared to treat a female POW the same way they do a man.

I say again, I would have loved to be in the infantry. I think I could have done it physically, I could’ve met almost all the male standards (jumping aside), and I think I’m mentally tough enough to handle whatever came. But I would never do that to the men. I would never sacrifice the mission for my own desires. And I wouldn’t be able to live with myself if someone died because of me.

There is no doubt in my mind that there are females out there that are pure bad asses. And I'm also sure that there are more than a few who could pass the basic tests to be a Grunt. With that said I am still unsure if women have a place in direct combat MOSs.

Can women truly endure the physical and physiological rigors of SUSTAINED combat operations, and are we truly prepared to accept the attrition and medical issues that will go along with this integration?

Is this all coming from a Congress agenda or are females Soldiers (enlisted and officer) pressuring Congress that their inability to serve in the infantry violates their equality?

Thanks for taking the time to write all that up, Kato. You raised a couple of points that I hadn't thought of. I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other, but I now consider myself better informed.

If your platoon was all 150lb women who carried packs and gear appropriate to their size, would they be less effective at communication, following orders, or killing people with their guns?

At this time the examples I've seen marry the idea that were there to be women in grunt positions, they they wouldn't be able to haul their larger counterparts when downed - but aren't there smaller men who cannot do the same?

Logged

"If it weren't for Philo T. Farnsworth, inventor of television, we'd still be eating frozen radio dinners." - Johnny Carson

If your platoon was all 150lb women who carried packs and gear appropriate to their size, would they be less effective at communication, following orders, or killing people with their guns?

At this time the examples I've seen marry the idea that were there to be women in grunt positions, they they wouldn't be able to haul their larger counterparts when downed - but aren't there smaller men who cannot do the same?

You are trying to find a solution to the physical issues but bypassing the psychological issues that have been raised.

I'm not sure you could equip a squad or platoon with "appropriate" gear, would that mean smaller guns, lighter machine guns, less ammo carried, lighter helmets etc? Those things would affect the ability of the squad and would not intergrate into the larger force be it Army or Marine.

Kato's post about Sentry seems pretty clear on many issues that can't be solved just by creating the perfect physical environment for women on the front lines.

Regarding Sentry's point about female POWs - the POWs are not going to just come from the infantry. In fact, even if we rescind this policy of allowing women on the front lines we will still have female pilots flying fighter jets and helicopters. Should we then rescind the policy of letting women fly combat missions because of fear of what the enemy will do to a captured female pilot?

I agree with the argument about physical standards being more stringent for line infantry units. But arguing about captured female POWs to me would seem like an argument to remove women from the armed services altogether. Simply because on an asymmetric battlefield anyone has the potential to become a POW.

Logged

A Pew Research Center poll found nearly half of Americans hold the false belief that TARP was passed under President Obama, while only 34 percent know it originated under Bush."Oh yeah?" Bush replied. "50% of the people were wrong."

Look at Abu Ghraib - women AND men can be violated - torture is torture. Once again, when troops become troops, and its people, not `Boys`and `Girls`, then perhaps equality can exist on more than just paper - but in our hearts and minds.

As for psychological issues, I suppose then that you should be vehemently objecting to gays in the military as well - they`re wired to be attracted to men, and so should they not also go through the same psychological weaknesses that clearly men would have towards female soldiers, both on-and-off the battlefield?

I`m not saying there may not be good reasons - I just haven`t seen any yet, other than size. What happens when one soldier survives 3 of his comrades in combat - is he expected to carry all three corpses for miles, or is there another force that is brought in to handle that? I`m sure a 150lb trained soldier can drag a corpse across a street, and perhaps pile them into a vehicle. Not as gracefully as a 250lb tank of a man, no. But capacity has to be measured - and you can`t have measurement unless you give it a go. As was stated before, adrenaline etc plays a role in real combat scenarios.

One could argue that a lighter, smaller soldier is more effective because they are a smaller field target. Once again, the gun does a lot of the talking. Having `Heavies`and `Lights`in combat is a staple of any military force - it`s just whether or not the army sees their troops needing the same diversity that their vehicles employ.

« Last Edit: February 06, 2013, 05:51:43 PM by Purge »

Logged

"If it weren't for Philo T. Farnsworth, inventor of television, we'd still be eating frozen radio dinners." - Johnny Carson

More than half of female Marines in boot camp can't do three pullups, the minimum standard that was supposed to take effect with the new year, prompting the Marine Corps to delay the requirement, part of the process of equalizing physical standards to integrate women into combat jobs....Although no new timetable has been set on the delayed physical requirement, Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Amos wants training officials to "continue to gather data and ensure that female Marines are provided with the best opportunity to succeed," Capt. Maureen Krebs, a Marine spokeswoman, said Thursday.

Starting with the new year, all female Marines were supposed to be able to do at least three pullups on their annual physical fitness test and eight for a perfect score. The requirement was tested in 2013 on female recruits at Marine Corps Recruit Depot, Parris Island, S.C., but only 45 percent of women met the minimum, Krebs said....Officials felt there wasn't a medical risk to putting the new standard into effect as planned across the service, but that the risk of losing recruits and hurting retention of women already in the service was unacceptably high, she said....In fall 2012, only two female Marines volunteered for the 13-week infantry officers training course at Quantico, Va., and both failed to complete it.

But the following fall, three Marines became the first women to graduate from the Corps' enlisted infantry training school in North Carolina. They completed the same test standards as the men in the course, which included a 12-mile march with an 80-pound pack and various combat fitness trials such as timed ammunition container lifts and tests that simulate running under combat fire.

I can't think that a whole lot of good will come from this. I'm fortunate enough to train at a Crossfit gym where the owner/head trainer is a woman who has qualified for the Crossfit Games 4 years in a row. She's an absolute animal. However maintaining that level of strength and fitness is basically a full-time job for her, and she's something of a freak of nature in many regards. Push comes to shove, the number of women who are truly physically capable enough to take arms beside men on the front lines and genuinely hold their own from a strength/endurance perspective are so few that I think this entire exercise is a bit of a farce.

But how do you feel about lowering the standards to allow more females to succeed? Why not lower the standards for the men as well so more men can succeed? I don't have an issue with women fighting, but it can't be good or safe for them to lower the standards to get the female recruitment numbers up. Even though everyone is considered a soldier first, why not lower the standards for certain MOS's? Maybe one's that have very low chances of being ion the front lines?